Saw Batman last night and found it to be overly long, some of the character building stuff in the beginning felt like it was dragging; that and I wanted to choke the older detective who let Bane get away because, honestly, did he really think he had a chance in hell of catching the Batman?

Well damn. I think The Dark Knight Rises was the best superhero film I've seen, and I think the new Spider-man was number two on that list. Finally there's enough build-up and characterization in films like this, there's no tongue-in-cheek stuff that feels like an apology that we are making a "silly superhero movie", and the dark stuff manages to feel actually dark and oppressive, not wangsty. The script worked in my opinion, and the plotholes were easy to gloss over since they were in my opinion staple stuff of superhero genre. I also loved the costume design, the cat woman goggles/"ears" was a wonderful detail. And some bastard gave Zimmer again an orchestra high with meth. Shiiiate.

I have a bit of a problem with the "moral" of the story though:

Soo, we have a group of guys who come in to take the power away from the Wall Street money elite and give it back to the people by OCCUPYING MANHATTAN, but oh no lo and behold, they are weird foreign suicide bomber terrorists in disguise! Subtle, man, subtle...

It was potentially a horrible date movie, though, since I just wanted to sit quietly throughout the credits, slow-clapping and wiping tears from my eyes. Luckily the date was a "watch the credits 'till the end" type of filmgoer too :)

I felt that this one suffered a lot from the lack of a memorable or credible villain (a point on which Joker was pretty much the best example I've seen in superhero movies), and that voice design for Bane kept pulling me out of the film really badly. Unfortunately the script wasn't doing the character any favours, either.

The length was a bit of a problem, too. Especially the scenes in The Pit could've done with some whittling.

Also, I'm beginning to think Nolan can't direct a romance to save his life.

All that said, I don't feel it was a bad film by any stretch, but it was a disappointment. But hey! Joseph Gordon-Levitt!

I'll have to admit that I have a thing for films that run a bit long. I mean, the only film I ever that has felt a bit too long was Until the End of the World :) Superhero films carry a lot of baggage and history and I kind of like it that they have some space to breathe in. Then again, it's a different question if that time was used well, very much a matter of taste.

The soundtrack really didn't sound different at all from The Dark Knight. I know there needs to be themes running through the soundtracks for both, but I honestly didn't notice any difference, and I kinda missed it.

Bane died a bitch ending. For a guy who exuded menace and ferocity through the whole movie, I think he deserved at least a few seconds more.

I'm not sure Blake's name really needed to be Robin. In fact, I kept expecting the young orphan that Blake spoke with a few times to be his Robin when Blake took up the cape and cowl, and was a little sad when that wasn't how it worked out.

However, other, than that, I absolutely loved the crap out of it. I stopped worrying about Anne Hathaway as Catwoman the second she

dropped the mousy maid act

and when we finally get to see

how the Bat works

I geeked out all over my row of seats. It was kind of embarrassing. I still think The Dark Knight is the best of the trilogy, but at present, I think Rises beats out Begins, and I really liked Begins. That's not a bad way for a trilogy to go. I also have to say I like Rises more than Avengers. Avengers was sheer, loud, awesome fun, and it's a great example of how to do feel-good summer action flicks. The Dark Knight Rises, though, is a strong, multi-leveled construction. It has its weak points, and a few structural faults, but the overall feeling I got from it was one of closure, hope, and strength. That's a pretty good feeling to leave the movie theater with, I think.

@Vorn/Fishelle: I had a hard time taking that as the "moral" of the movie. It seemed to me that the people handing over the power to the people were doing no such thing. It was an illusion; maybe there's a Koch brothers - Tea Party analogy in there somewhere. To me it just seemed more complicated to me than to be simply equated with wall street/occupy.

@Alan:

Blake's given name being Robin made me roll my eyes. I thought they set him up perfectly as a successor to Batman without needing that bit of fan-service.

Overall I liked the length and pace. I liked how it leaned towards a Gotham Central type movie over pure Batman. I think it worked very well as an ending speaking to how the Batman was/became a symbol to Gotham beyond just rich guy w/cape and wonderful toys.

Damn, I had completely forgotten about Gotham Central, but now you mention it I remember being really struck by how much The Dark Knight resembled that series, almost to the point where I was certain the Nolans were consciously using it as a source of inspiration. Don't think they have ever mentioned it, tho. I remember them pointing out the Loeb / Sale books instead, which was a surprise since apart from Haunted Knight I thought they were a bit pedestrian.

@Mercer: I think the Dark Knight and Rises even more so have a Gotham Central feel, particularly relating to the No Man's Land storyarc. They may not be everybody's cup of tea, but they're both Batman high points for me.

Hey, I'm getting back on the horse with films and it seems to be starting to take off - could you recommend your top-3 or 5 or whatever of slow paced films you liked? I've seen my Tarkovsky, but outside of that? :)

@Vornaskotti: Though you didn't ask me, I was going to comment earlier, after you mentioned it, on slow paced films. My top 3 would be Fincher's Zodiac (it's intense and atmospheric if slightly factually inaccurate) The Ninth Gate (Johnny Depp hunting/reading old books and drawn into a demonic conspiracy) Kingdom of Heaven director's cut (gorgeous battles, scenery, and in the director's cut slower and better character development).

I have to agree with you RE: Nolan's Batman. I'm pretty uncomfortable with the poltical/moral message of all three of them. Oddly though, that doesn't usually stop me from liking a film. Dirty Harry is a good example: great movie, horrible moral message. I draw the line at Birth of a Nation, mind.

I took that whole sequence to be a critique of an anarchic society, which Gotham had become with no central leadership and no law enforcement. Or, perhaps more accurately, a critique of an anarchic society that got that way by violently disposing of its government. I don't think it had anything to do with political protest, whether left wing or right, and everything to do with looking at what happens when you turn a society's power structures inside out. The fact that it came across as very Occupy Wall Street was because the Nolan Brothers had already established in the first two movies that Gotham's major role in the world was as a financial center. If Gotham had been a Hollywood analogue, you'd have seen people hanging movie execs on streetlamps, or looting the houses of rich actors and producers, rather than rich bankers and traders. The themes in the third act of TDKR are, I think, a lot broader and timeless than any comment on contemporary society.

She's looking for the same thing Bruce Wayne is - a way out - she's just able to admit to herself that that's what she wants. The irony is, Bruce has the ability to stop, but he can't admit to himself that that's what he wants. Only together do they both actually get what they want.

however her character development was so silly that the Cat Woman we got at the end of the film wasn't drawn from all the things that happened in the middle.

The question for me is "would the movie have been better written without the Selina character?" My answer is it that it wouldn't of made a difference (and if we got rid of her for 2nd act problems why not Joseph Gordon-Levitt or Bane - or Batman)